Is Vista faster than XP?
mtrox
Minnesota
Just out on Tom's. Their bottom line, XP is faster, esp if you are just running one program (i.e. gaming).
I also know there are some who question Tom's credibility. Anyone have an opinion on that or was that just some random geek forum I stumbled on one day with it's own little culture?
I also know there are some who question Tom's credibility. Anyone have an opinion on that or was that just some random geek forum I stumbled on one day with it's own little culture?
0
Comments
It's true. I've tested it myself. Vista is substantially slower for a myriad of reasons, starting with the hugemongous memory footprint via Aero and ending in terrible driver support.
I have to admit, as far as speed goes, I'm a bit compelled by their last point in their conclusions:
The things we all like about XP are that it runs well, heals itself, we don't have to reboot all the time. These days, no one talks about how fast it is...and the fact is that hardware is so much faster now than it was 5 years ago that the question of XP versus 98 speed is almost irrelevant.
Thrax,
Based on your experience do you feel that this loss in speed can/will be overcome as Vista (along with better drivers) becomes more "mainstream"?
I know Vista can play havok on "older" (circa. June 2006 - LOL) machines with slower processors and less memory. I'm not sure I'm going to upgrade to Vista on any of my current equipment. My gaming machine isn't the fastest out there anymore, but it still does well enough that I'm not willing to slow it down with a new OS.
Might ask for a new Dell or Alienware for a wedding present in Dec, or maybe even as a 1st anniversary present. Not gaming as much now that I'm almost hitched! LOL
1. Disable Aero when a 3D-accelerated application is running. Currently all GPUs must render the overhead of an accelerated UI you can't even see when there's a game going.
2. Reduce the amount of unnecessary services, either by outrightly disabling them, or by changing a large portion of them to manual startup.
3. The driver model is very, very new -- of course people are going to need time to get used to this.
4. Reduce CPU overhead by disabling unnecessary tasks at application start, preferably with some API that we can control. IE, "I want program X, X, X and X to disable feature X, X, X and X at launch. Apply."
I have some other thoughts, but I'm at work. I'll touch back later.
Look at Windows 98 and XP - everyone thought XP would always lag behind 98 in performance, and look at it now.
Same with Win 95 and 3.1.
Each time we get an OS that is easier to use and less optomized for anything.
And as Edd noted, 2000 is stable as hell too. If it just had Sys Restore....
Yes, a full install is a pain. But at least w2k works.
In any case I have Vista and am loving it, cant wait for the other 1gb of ram to turn up
That's my bet. I'm "all in" on that one.
Super, what do you like? Is it just the look and feel (or "WOW" as Gates calls it) or are their more nuts and bolts things you like?
You really want to know what I like apart from the whole intereface? Its the way the operating actually HELPS you yes HELPS its almost self doing and self thinking just the way it does what it does when its downloading, searching for answers the whole operating system feels extremely user friendly and feels as though its their to help you!
If people dont agree then well to be fair I have used Windows since 95 and this operating system has to be the best yet!
It is for now but once those updates are released along with the service packs which will come out I am sure it will help boost its peformance, and dont forget apparently you need 4gb of ram to get the most of out Vista which is crazy!